Burnett v Public Trustee of New South Wales

The case of Burnett v Public Trustee of New South Wales involved a former de facto partner, the plaintiff, seeking a claim against the estate of the deceased, who was their partner for fourteen months. The relationship had ended more than forty-one years prior to the deceased’s death. Despite the termination of their relationship, the plaintiff and deceased maintained contact through letters and telephone calls. The plaintiff sought financial provision from the deceased’s estate under the Family Provision Act 1969, asserting their need and entitlement based on their financial circumstances and the history of their relationship. The court had to determine whether the relationship, despite its brief duration, warranted a claim against the estate and whether the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient grounds for an order of provision, given the competing claims of other beneficiaries.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the fourteen-month de facto relationship constituted a valid basis for a claim under the Family Provision Act 1969 and whether the plaintiff had established an entitlement to an order for provision from the deceased's estate. The court also had to weigh the plaintiff’s claim against the claims of other beneficiaries who were named in the deceased’s will. The court was required to consider the financial and material circumstances of the plaintiff, the nature of the relationship with the deceased, and any relevant factors that could justify the making of the application.

In its reasoning, the court noted that while the relationship was brief, the nature of the contact maintained over many years was significant. However, the court concluded that the duration and circumstances of the relationship did not warrant a departure from the deceased's testamentary wishes. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to establish an entitlement to an order for provision. The financial and material circumstances of the plaintiff, while noted, were not deemed compelling enough to override the deceased's expressed intentions through their will. The court upheld the deceased’s will, ruling against the plaintiff’s claim.

The court ordered that the estate be distributed according to the terms of the deceased's will, rejecting the plaintiff's application for financial provision. The decision underscored the importance of the deceased's testamentary freedom and the limited circumstances under which a de facto partner could claim against an estate after a relationship has ended.